Jump to content

okopanja

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. All for the sake of realism (and fairplay). Besides there will still be cloudy days, and they can still fire u ndetected below 8km(well due to loft a bit lower). Visualy it will be exciting to see a novice pilot trying to inrease PK, drawing trails in the sky up there. Son: Look dad! There is an eagle in the sky! Father: Hurry up son, before somebody else catches him!
  2. Bottom line: we need this for better realism and immersion. It is a great feeling to se the results of great flying and acquiring of target, and then witnessing the speed with which it toastes the sorry excuse for the enemy. Given the fact that AIM-120c is carried by still actively supported and developed modules I see no reason for not adding this(except performance impact when too much "smoke" gets fired). Just imagine how magnificent the blue sky would look when the skilled pilots open their broadside salvos(maybe I need to switch to pirate sims?).
  3. Mind that the actual speed might be much higher, then these numbers increase as well. The volume of the space where this target can move without being detected can be calculated.
  4. I meant precisely that. First one is more in line on how a real radar works and whey the whole state machine is executed like this. If we are talking about probability from observer with no prior knowledge on position (like in case 2), the described algorithm bets on the target that more or less moves as before. When this is not the case probability of detecting the signal again drops. My point is that radar may loose signal for many different reasons and not only the notch. E.g. rapid altitude change (after all it was more important to keep much higher 6 bar scan than reduced raster scan of 3 degree), terrain, hardware deteriorating. The radar in question had low reliability of just 15 hours of MTBF (it must have been really expensive to operate, until they managed to expand that to 120 hours with v1). That is so low that programmer would have to assume that the hardware will not be so reliable. Radar is more likely to keep lock with the target that stayed in the notch longer, provided that it changes expect within interval of 12 seconds. Any other target that moved away from these two search zone (extrapolated 6 second line and 6 second pattern) would simply break the lock, and the longer you wait the worse for you. The main reason you get MEM is to prepare the pilot for the fact that lock is lost and that limited attempt of recovery is in progress. 4.5 seconds may be actually a favor to the DCS pilot to start LRS sooner.
  5. In case of AIM-120, it is reduced smoke, true but obviously creates very visible contrails under right conditions. This would make them visible on the sunny blue sky once they get launched. Regarding smokey, I gather you meant the R family, but for AIM-120 it looks like contrail effect should be way more visible than smoke itself (even when compared to smokey).
  6. I read the attached document and I am wondering if you will get much out of this change when dealing with the notch. Consider these conditions: - you are 40km way of the target, - target flies 1000 km/h which enters the notch. It travels roughly 277,78 m/s. - it appears that beam width of F-15 is 2,5 degree. (this is based on the diagram of the scanning pattern). Within initial 3 seconds the target travels 833,34m , meanwhile your radar attempts at tracking as before based on what occurred, with the beam resulting in ~ 872m wide cone at that distance: so far so good you should receive your reflection. In case it continued to notch filter will drop the target and you will not see it (meaning you progress to state 2). If the the target changed the aspect, depending on the change you may get reflection in which case the filter will not drop it: you kept your lock. If the target made more radical move, it exited the cone and therefore you got no reflections, while meanwhile for another 3 seconds your radar still continues to search linearly (already here your chance at retaining the lock drops significantly). In third state for 6 seconds you the radar switch to mini-raster, which expands the search area (horizontally 3 deg, calculated at 4192m). The target meanwhile the target traveled 1666,68m from the point where you lost signal. The pattern may hit it, but its more about weaker probabilities at this point. This is why it transitions to state 4: long range search. Please note that if targets goes in higher speeds it travel longer trajectory, while your beam still has the same width. IMHO: modeling of the above may not be trivial as you believe. I mean you can roll dices (which nobody in forum likes as I gather) for each state based on calculated probabilities, or make complete calculation of radar cone coverage. @GGTharossince you are for ages here ( ), do you remember if the radar modeling details in DCS were ever published?
  7. Well, I tried to explain software development and lifecycle of the software products, and why introducing an new requirements is not seen as a bug, but rather as a feature request to a legacy product. I must say I can not fully agree that they are popular now, it depends if you measure popularity through sales or by usage on servers. The first one would simple indicate that module is popular as a selling item, but given the limitations I would also assume that what follows is the purchasing of more capable module (ED likes this). On Growling Sidewinder server, I would say they are way down when it comes to popularity. On blue most popular are F-18 (around 50%), F-16 (20-40%). On red side de-facto leader of the pack is F-16, followed by Flanker, JF-17 and Mig-21.
  8. You are probably right about this from user perspective. It sounds easy, but I do not think this is that easy. I assume they did not have the document you provided at the time they modeled the F-15c radar in BVR in the first place. Fast-forward today, from their point of view this is actually a new state that needs further modeling. This is the reason I used the word feature. A feature of the software product called FC3, released 2013, 8 years ago. I bought it since it sounded as a great deal: you get A-10, Su-25, Su-27 and F-15 in the package. I started with Su-27 since this is what I was used to 20 years ago with their even older products, with idea to go with F-15 which I considered as more sophisticated. In MP I quickly learned both of these birds are not air superiority fighters anymore: F-15, having the great AIM-120c but with missing a datalink blind as a mole, Su-27 with half-functional datalink and rather unusable medium range missiles. Su-27 had the option to join A-10 and Su-25 and find itself a niche where it can still be successful thanks to DL and EOS. The F-15 can still fly fast and high as an Eagle and hope for the best while flying above the small pond full of crocodiles. With so many RED flying F-16 (which IMHO is totally crazy), it is rather difficult to use its SA of threats. The reason these aircraft get so little love is that major part of development of that project ended in 2013, with maybe some maintenance period of 4-5 years, which is typically how long you can expect a software product to be maintained, unless there is a new release. In this case new release did not occur, instead the company started creating the different eras/modules/maps/weapon packs. This means that most of the company's talent moves to another project with only skeleton crew (typically a single integrator/developer + manager in order to minimize the costs) remains to run the tests needed for the integration of these modules. From personal insight on how things work in software companies, I can tell you the skeleton crew is on average limited in skills (or decides to act like that after their next performance interview), and is increasingly defensive when it comes to the changes. They kept the old product in the game for 2 reasons: - cache cow with almost no investment, but with small steady income as entry level title. - these aircraft are still needed in the game, after all all those new customers need intelligent drones out there. I do not see this changing unless ED decides to create FF modules of FC3 aircraft. In this case they already did something similar with A-10 and even offered the upgrade. Bare in mind that when they did this they likely did not earn the same amount of money as for the new module, so likely their management will oppose upgrade path in future. However with all new modules being announced in different eras I do not think any shift in behavior will occur anytime soon. IMHO: they will not fix anything short of causing the issue with active modules. (I wish to be proved otherwise for both F-15 and Su-27). Personally, I will wait for discounts (black Friday, Christmas) to be offered on some of the western and eastern aircraft that are FF.
  9. Not completely, DL with wingman is missing in MP. In addition ECM is lobotamized with 60s limitation of 15 seconds delay. Lets face it: FC3 is a legacy product in maintenance phase, this means they will not implement feature requests. Today the focus is on single modules(aircrafts, maps, weapon packs) that bring the fresh money. If we see FF among FC3 it will likely be a red aircraft, due to saturation of offer on blue side.
  10. Perhaps the latest example on how things can go wrong with/without IFF even today : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45556290 https://www.rt.com/news/438686-syria-russia-s200-il20/ Second one offers a bit more detailed flight plan, although some critical details are missing...
  11. No it is not just you, although drag calculation borders it... I think we need focus on simple things and pass the 1st line support, you know just follow the rules and demonstate the issue in reproducable way: 1. Enter cockpit (F-15) 2. Turn on electric installation 3. Turn on enigine 1 4. Wait for 40% 5. Turn on 2 6. ... X. Some time later, fire 120 on unsuspectig Su-27 drone... Anyway the issue bumped to the top if anyone visits the section...
  12. Surely this topic deserves the comment from ED? Are trk files needed?
  13. At the moment I do not own F-14, F-16(planned for Nov/21) or F-18. However I can act as red "drone" if someone owning them is willing to test.
  14. Nice tutorial. Is there any official documentation? I tried several and mostly got dead links
×
×
  • Create New...